Hi. Can you tell me how does it work, that file with copyright status can be transferred to commons and approved? If there was a change of licence after transferring this file - should it be deleted? Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The user added the "reviewed" flickrtemplate directly to the upload form, see the first revision of the file description. The file was never reviewed by human and not transfered (and thereby reviewed) by a bot. Blatant manipulation. --Martin H. (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. That doesn't look good. Thanks for the info, will keep an eye for another form of manipulation. Sigh. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You acted so quickly there was no time to respond. Why the hurry? The photo MeetingWithPope was taken from saltanat.org with whom I have a close relationship and know that they took the photo and give permission for it to be used. Perhaps I got the license info wrong. Could you please revert this file? Thank you. BePhoto (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it will not help to have permission from saltanat.org, the image is from the Associated Press and they must give you written permission that anyone (not only Wikipedia and not only saltanat.org but anyone, worldwide) can reuse the image anywhere, anytime for every purpose including commercial reuse, redistribution, modification and so on under the terms of an irrevocable, free license. --Martin H. (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete Ion Mihai Pacepa.jpg I've uploaded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Mihai_Pacepa)? That is the real picture. That picture is not copyrighted. I've uploaded under those license condition by mistake. That picture is not copyrighted in any way.

And if you mixed that up: non-free fair use, like in en:File:Ion Pacepa.jpg, is not accepted on Commons, this is a free content project. --Martin H. (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I also tried to upload the image under the "non-free fair use" terms but I can't. I am required to be an an autoconfirmed user , which I'm not. What does it require to become one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukuxklantz (talk • contribs) 21:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

the photo File:liuzhou_night.jpg i have the license, it´s a photo of my friend and i have asked, can you help me to make it well. thanks

Provide written permission from the copyright holder and indicte with your upload if and where it was published before. It was published before, I found the image on the web. --Martin H. (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the messages you left on my talk page. The files I uploaded are clearly marked as my own work and have Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licences attached to them. Please check the files again, they are all my own artwork and I have contributed them to Commons under GFDL. Is there some other problem I'm unaware of? Please contact me via my talk page when you get a chance.

Martin, the images in File:Archive001.jpg are not screencaps. They are drawings rendered up in photoshop. I created them myself. The idea was illustrate the visual characteristics of 1960s Japanese animation. Everything I've uploaded to Commons is my own artwork.

you describe it as an "early Japanese cartoon".

I never described it as an "early Japanese cartoon." My exact words were: "Panchira was extremely common in early Japanese cartoons." The statement refers to a visual convention of 1960s Japanese animation.

As stated previously, every image I've uploaded to this site is my own artwork. I have supplied accurate source information and released these images under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. They are perfectly legitimate.

In this case please remove the no source tag now that the source is described. Please also correct your description. Dont start with a description of what your work is not, early Japanese cartoon, start with a description describing what it is: "This image shows fan art imitating early Japanese cartoon" - thats more appropriate and not misleading. --Martin H. (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Martin, that permission is not Creative Commons, permission is valid only for hr:wiki. Thank you for information that on some pictures was wrong template, I corrected it. Regards --Roberta F. (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand thats a question you ask someone, it not confirms that the image was licensed under that license at the moment you uploaded it here or that he agrees to it. If the image is not licensed in the second of upload here you can not upload it. --Martin H. (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not about truth or untruth, its about wrong process. You can not upload an image with a cc-by or cc-by-sa license tag and say, that the image was previously licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa on flickr with {{Flickr-change-of-license}}(Esta imagem foi originalmente carregada no Wikimedia Commons licenciada como notado abaixo. O utilizador do Flickr mudou entretanto a licença para ser mais restrictiva.) The image MUST be under cc-by or cc-by-sa at the second of upload. If the flickr user not changes his license on flickr then he must sent Email to OTRS. This are the only ways, uploading with free license ad flickr-change-of-license the same second is not possible. This is however resolved now with a license change on flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information you gave me, this confusion gave me more experience in the Commons. Truu (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Martin, I have a question on Commons protocol. I had earlier uploaded this image. [2] I notice that a new version has been added, which is my upload with the (needed) crop in it. [3] However, this cropped version makes no mention of my previous upload, while using the same information. Should these sorts of cropped images be added as 'other versions' to the original image? I've wondered about this before. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If a second version is created and it is necesary to upload it under a different name it should be added to other_versions=. In this case I dont see the need to upload a second version, just overwrite your version with the cropped/retouched version. The original file will be stored in the version history, so it will not be lost. --Martin H. (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Is there something I need to do to accomplish that, or should I leave it to the administrators at Commons? MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Is the {{nowcommons|Ezra_Pound_passport_photograph_undated.jpg} to be added in the line on the English wikipedia version under 'other versions'? Sorry for the dumb question. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Martin, I am sending you the similar email I have just sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Hope this will solve the problem. I will ask Giorgi Latsabidze to send the same kind of email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as well. Please let me know if there is anything I should do. All the best. Here is the copy bellow: <email removed> Username: Kunjunglee10 (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Kunjunglee10

I removed the email, please sent it to OTRS - as you did already. The permission should however come from the author and copyright holder, no need to sent a second permission from someone who is not the copyright holder. This kind of permission is only related to copyright, not to the agreement of pictured persons. --Martin H. (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Martin, as I already pointed out I am the author and copyright holder of this file. What should I do in this case? Thanks Kunjunglee10 (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Martin, this user has uploaded 12 photos in 1 hour, all as "own work" and licensed as "public domain". I have identified 9 of them as copies from internet. What should be done about other 3? I guess they are probably copies as well; it's just a matter of choosing right words to put in Google Images... Ednei amaral (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You added category 'Players of FC Zenit' to many images with Anatoliy Tymoshchuk. But it is not needed, you should add category:Players of FC Zenit to the Category:Anatoliy Tymoshchuk.--Anatoliy (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, thats exactly what one should not do, not all images in that category are hierarchically related to Zenit. --Martin H. (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So, categorization by clubs is one thing and by seasons is other thing. Create category Players of 'FC Bayern München 2009/2010' by seasons and put there categories 'Players of FC Bayern München XXXX/XXXX', and in category 'Players of FC Bayern München' leave the cats of players.--Anatoliy (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Will that resolve the wrong hierarchical categorization? Im not sure, this file will still not have anything to do with Sports in Munich nor Bayer nor... and so on. When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also. Commons is not an all players database, for that purpose we have lists in Wikipedia - and I dont see what detains us from creating more galleries like 'players of X in the 1990s' or 'Hall of fame of X' (X=club; validity of the HoF assumed, not a personal HoF but one of the club or the press e.g.). --Martin H. (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it wrong? It is your subjective opinion, but not opinion if community. Look at such situation. I write article at xxx.wkipedia about the footballer John Smith (all player and team names are not real) who plays last three seasons for the Township United F.C. And I want to add image to my article. I go to the category Players of Township United F.C. And than go to Players of Township United F.C. 2009/2010, but there is no photos of Smith there. Than I go to 2008/2009, 2007/2008 seasons and does not found photos of Smith there. And I know that before Township United this player was played for Township City F.C. I go to the category Players of Township City F.C. 2006/2007 and there I find his photo. So, I should search into 4 categories before finding them, instead of one category if he (or his category) will be in category Players of Township United F.C. And if there is better photo (than founded by me) in category Players of Township Rangers F.C. 2005/2006, I did not found it.--Anatoliy (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no subjective opinion and no community opinion, only one growed category system that was developed from adding categories of articles from one projects to categories of categories of another project. I like to propose an alternative that better fits the scope of Commons to organize media files, not to organize people. Both alternatives have their pros and shortcomings. I think the problem/shortcoming you mention can be resolved with a gallery page for John Smith listing photos of him in chronological order of stations of his career. --Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

But it may be much people with the name John Smith and I should firstly find correct category. If we take real people: if I want find photo of Anatoliy Tymoshchuk (uk:Анатолій Тимощук) I may find it in category about him, but there are at least 16 variants of transliteration of Анатолій Тимощук (regexp: Anatol(i|y|iy|ii) T(i|y)mo(s|sh)chuk) and the easier way will be go to the category Players of FC Shakhtar Donetsk or Players of FC Zenit and there find 'his' category.--Anatoliy (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats realy an different issue now. Articles as well as categories have to be linked from Wikipedia correctly. --Martin H. (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So, all that content is no longer valid? Files are by default considered to be photographs? Oh my, much to delete... - Olybrius (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, to resort, there is much to take into consideration: Some may be eligible to create a 'History of photography in yyyy' category if the photographs can be considered of historic value (e.g. mentioned in a textbook as a step in development of photography, etc) and maybe there are other aspects too. --Martin H. (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hi, You have recently deleted a file walter_audsio.jpg, citing it as copyright violation. It is printed in 1945, more than 60 years back then how can it be a copyright violation. Please explain. regards. -Viplovecomm (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright last the authors lifetime +70 years in the (assumed) country of origin of this image. Dating back to 1945 (1945+70=2015) the file cant be public domain because it is impossible that the author died >70 years ago. --Martin H. (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi ! My source are: Institutul de cartografie al Academiei de Stiinte a Republicii Moldova. I work since their photos, but I dont' know if they take the original picture on Earth Google ? May be. But I will to transforme better this maps, --Mitica-Misha (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

I just went back and recreated part of the category tree under Category:Months by country. There are scores more subcats I don't have the time to get to. Contrary to what you have advocated, they are content related and have educational value. If you have issue with these categories, please take it to COM:CFD. I find it disingenuous that you just speedy empty and delete categories. Evrik (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not possible to start lenghty discussion every time someone has the great idea to start a new brainless meta categorization system for the purpose of collecting unrelated categories in one category with no informational value. If you like this sort of occupational therapy and overdoing Commons with unecessary category mess - well, feel free. --Martin H. (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, some of the pictures that I upload related to Adolfo Ruiz Cortines will be or has been deleted. What can I do to preserve the pictures in Wikipedia? What license should I use? Help me please because pictures are essential part of an article. Salutes!!--DaVincimo (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See your talkpage. The images must be public domain, public domain is 70 years following the author death, in some countries, e.g. Mexico, it is longer. You can not upload files this files if they are not public domain and they are not public domain. See also Commons:Primeros pasos/Selección de licencia: No subas este archivo. --Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And blatant abuse of multiple accounts is not the way it works. --Martin H. (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm try to reduce the number of custom templates and to consolidate them with standard templates. Do you think you can change this template to be based on a standard template? Multichill (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

+not all images from the collection are available on flickr. Users also upload low res jpgs directly from LoC too because maybe they don't know how to convert and handle tiff files. They do good work however with uploading, describing and including images to Wikipedia articles, I only created the copyright tag after a question about the copyright status was asked at COM:FORUM. --Martin H. (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A while ago you had nominated an upload from me (Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Uruzgan_FM_-_Hanneke_Eilander.jpg), because it was strange that only the Dutch Ministry of Defence of all the ministry don't allowed commercial uses of there publications and photo's I had contacted them. I had got a response where the public information officer stated that commercial use is allowed. Can you pleaser help me what to do now ? I think a OTRS is the best step now ?

That's correct, I have noticed that. But I have recieved an email where they state that commercial use is allowed, this is also in line with the statement on the website. If you want I can forward this email (it's in Dutch). Huhbakker (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot :) Thanks for pointing me to Multichill, I will ask him Huhbakker (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Ticket to the Cinema-City" was described (PD-self). I mentioned the owner and the location of the cinema. Creator of a specific logo and a special publication "tickets" ignores Cinema City? Apparently, trademarks used for information purposes do not enjoy copyright protection? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Culture_show_tickets Unfortunately, the information in Wikipedia on copyright is not uniform in different languages. --Alians PL (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, can you help with deletions of (at least some) his contributions? There are several copied from here. He uploaded the photo of politicians. It's just check the name of the file (like File:Ailton Alves de Oliveira.JPG) and then click in his name at this page, linking to the page where he copied the image. Do we really need to nominate for deletion every of them individually? Or should you help me in this task? I have also identified some of his contibutions were copied from other sites. Ednei amaral (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am the author of File:Mold-Ukr_Exchange.jpg & File:Museum_Paris_Plan.jpg but evidently I work since many other sources, as everyone. Please Martin, if I forgotted some information, or if I writed wrong something when I uploaded this images, would you do the corrections in the forms ?

Thank you very much for your help,--Mitica-Misha (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This broke the main image on the American Old West article [5] and it was left unfixed for ten days until I repaired it. Please be more careful when moving images. Exxolon (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like my edit wasn't saved. As you can see in my recent contributions cross wiki I always rename files to not breake reuse, my own renames (very few) and other peoples rename (much more). Thanks for fixing it anyway. --Martin H. (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Martin. Sefer Azeri said to me, that you deleted some of his photos he realy did himself and want delete another photos (for example this). He will sent you a list of his photos he did himself. And could you return his own photos you deleted? --Irada (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Hi friend, i‘m sorry, i don‘t know english. Originals of this photos is mine. Please help me.

Please go to Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Sefer ibrahim. I noted that this list contains some blatantly stolen pictures like File:Mərdəkanda dairəvi qala yeni.jpg that source is already identified in the deletion request... You should not repeat your wrong claims but say the truth this time, thats your only chance. The list above is only a copy of the whole list, not a selection of the copyvio images nor a selection of the self created pictures. And @Irada: No, the deleted photographs were stolen from another Panoramio user. Looks like Panoramio/GoogleEarth is a favoured source but also Panoramio/Google is not a eligible for swiping some files and making false author claims. --Martin H. (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin, I translated all you said to Sefer and explain waht he have to do. I hope he understood it. --Irada (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. It is not clear to me that this is strictly a maintenance category. But even if it were, why would we be hiding a category that contains (arguably) the best images on the Commons pertaining to the United States? Unless I am missing something, it makes no practical sense. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the best images of Wikimedia Commons has no relevance in world outside of Commons. It is a non-topical category and related to internal maintenance only, this category has no business being inside the topic category tree. --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. I can't image how the best images would have no relevance outside of Commons -- if that were the case, then none of the files on Commons would have any relevance outside of the project. And, for the life of me, I can't see how the category is relevant to internal maintenance only (and would, therefore, have no relevance to Commons users). This is a completely different animal than, for example, Category:Images for cleanup. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not about the individual images, the images are categorized by topic. Its not about categorizing the individual fp images into a by country category. It is only about the maintencance category, this category has no significance for the topic category Category:United States but is a collection or maintencance. "Best image" is an attribute of the media file on Commons, it is not a topic. --Martin H. (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To say that the images are already categorized elsewhere misses the point I was making. The point is that users looking for images of the United States would presumably be interested in a category that contains the best images on the Commons pertaining to that topic. While I completely understand the distinction between a maintenance category and a topic category, I would disagree with how you have chracterized this one -- but, having said that, even if it were a maintenance category, making it a hidden category would seem to be an overly rigid interpretation of regular practice, completely at odds with the objectives of the project. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Then link your category, point users to the 'by country' category in Commons:Featured pictures but dont simply put a maintenance category into the topic category tree. The category system is herarchical, this is not a topic. Also the category system isnt the sollution for everything, it is intended to organize our content by topic, not to replace all other content like galleries or project pages. This is a maintencance category AND - see Category:Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons - it it is a hidden category. --Martin H. (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We're just talking in circles. I am now sure how the fact that the category system is hierarchical means that this is not a topic. Again, this is not really a maintenance category. And, yes, the category system is not a solution for everything, but that's not an excuse for limiting the category tree. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is "Featured file on Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Commons" and educational topic such as United States, Architecture of the United States, Cities in the, Economy of the, Geography of the United States? Is a category such as en:Category:Featured_articles on any Wikipedia project mixed together with the topic categories? I dont think so. --Martin H. (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your first sentence -- is there a word missing? As for the second sentence, I am not sure that articles in an encyclopedia are really comparable to images in a media repository. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, a 'd' to much. If you think that topic categories on Commons should not only contain facts but also personal concepts or opinions of the community you may propose this somewhere, maybe we can extend the topic category tree on this. Fact is that 'featured' (note that this if used as a topic is very missleading for someone who not know Commons and Wikimedia. Featured by whom?). For the moment this is maintencance and not topic as all featured (Category:Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons - hidden, not topic), quality (Category:Quality images - hidden, not topic), etc (Category:Valued images by month of promotion - hidden, not topic) categories are maintenancen based categories. As a maintenance category this not belongs to topic categories. If you want to change an existing concept you may propose it somewhere and not argue against my simple edit based on your personal taste. --Martin H. (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. This is not about personal opinions. And, in any event, the onus is on you to propose a change to this particular category tree. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Following the shema of all other similar categories, applying common sense and considering that a hiddencat was already added: No. This case is clear and simple, the onus is not with the person who not wants to propose to change an existing shema to something different. --Martin H. (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is your own personal view that it is clear and simple. You sought to make a change, and another editor disagreed with your proposal. It is up to you to propose the change elsewhere if you wish to pursue it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You know what - we've both spent more time debating this issue than it is worth. I mostly don't agree with you on this issue, but upon further reflection, I can't say that I have the energy to get into a longer debate over it. I find myself thinking about your comment above, the one about the category being ill-defined (what does "featured" mean?), and while I don't agree with you on the maintenance/topic points, that one comment keep nagging at me because you had a good point with which I could not disagree. Sometimes it's better just to agree to disagree and move on. Feel free to make the change - I'll defer to you. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Martin, I'm curious about this edit. [6][7] The original file was uploaded by me here, and then another user cropped it and simply listed the original as 'other versions.' Shouldn't that new 'cropped' version have been uploaded over the original, with the tags and notations on the original preserved? Thanks! MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Both are possible ways. 1) Overwriting the old file with a cropped or retouched version 2) Uploading it under a new name. No problem with that. --Martin H. (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete this image? Wikipedia Commons is a site to upload free images. The source clearly says that the author has given permission to use his images as long as they are cited and sourced, to direct credit to the author. Those requirements were met. Theresident (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The source does not mention commercial reuse and especially not derivative works - reproduction does not include derivative works. This is not allowed on Commons. Additionally I have strong doubts that the source is the copyright holder, but given the first problem this second problem is of no more importance. --Martin H. (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

p.s.: Note that effectively they can not restrict reuse with source attributed. Thats fair use right. That however has nothing to do with free reuse, fair use isnt accepted on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The coin is in the PD maybe, yes. But a photographic reproduction of a coin is NOT. See the deletion summary. You can not simply steal someone else work (photographic work) and claim it pd too just because the photographed object is pd. Wikimedia does not recognize this copyright on reproductions of 2D works, but we do recognize it for photographs of 3D objects. --Martin H. (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that File:50koerner.jpg is a self-created photograph.... Additionally, regarding your barefaced claim, my only interest is free content, this is a main difference between me and the uploader who intentionally lied to me once. --Martin H. (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please I need a explanation, the photo which I upload was taked by my camera, it's my photo, I upload in panoramanio.com too, I have a original file , this photo was taked while i was visiting my parents in that place, i don't understand what happned and why it was delete, please, if you can see in panoramamio.com the photo was upload by me. I want to put the photo for use to everybody Best Regards

Jhover. Ecuador.

Did not see that. However, the upload form says: If this work of yours was already published elsewhere without indication of a free license, use [...]. This file has been published before. You can indicate the license relatively simple on Panoramio with changing the license on panoramio to an individual license allowing commercial reuse and modification, the direct link is http://www.panoramio.com/license_conditions/?photo_id=18192590. Changing the license would be sufficient to proofe that it is your account. --Martin H. (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

May I also remove the nld tag from File:Elliot_Aronson_1972.jpg? As the page says, "The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system." MartinPoulter (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the same problem and same procedure, license tag must be added. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Noted your indicated concern on the photo of artist Lorenzana[8]; I hired and worked with the photographer of this picture (who covered the studio action for the artist's current release) but I handle graphic imrpovements before they are sent out to media as per artist agent's requirements or observations. I have tried to input the required information based on the GFDL license added on my user talk page to verify ownership of the work. Please review and inform me if the inputs were correctly done as I am still groping with the manner of properly contributing. Thank you for the advice.

Why not? Are you afraid that it would be kept? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont want to have the image deleted but to have required source information added, for this purpose I select the appropriate process on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

All the information is there. Your tagging will delete this file. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagging can not delete something automagically. Feel free to extend the date of tagging as we did now (including an unexplained and unfounded license change that I disagree with) if you think information is on the way. --Martin H. (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And a week from now a zealous admin will batch-delete the category. What is your problem with a DR, if you do not agree with the license? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligent efforts, and for keeping the sources of our Images aligned to the policies and procedures established by Wikimedia, and more specifically, within Commons.

An admirable labor, given the consideration that your are a volunteer, or perhaps not and you are getting pay for this, which in this case will be a good idea. Once Again thank you.

I am sure that your first and outmost motivation is to increase the cooperation and collaboration, with people like you and I. Those people, some of which posses a little time, but strong good will to do good and positive things over the Web. They come here to do their best in following all the new demands for defending every author's intellectual rights; as an author and a creative person myself, I am very supportive of all those ideas.

However, it is important to recognize that that picture, is authentic, and it is more than 100 years old. Obviously is on the "Public Domain" Doesn't it? The photo is of a famous and very talented Peruvian Poet, whose life was daring and notable. He studied at the first university of America, "La Universidad Mayor de San Marcos." Therefore, his photo has prevalence and importance, it is of an extraordinary value. Unfortunately, at this point we do not know who was the photographer or when exactly was taken or where, but the original is saved at the University archives and has been used in many journals and publications about the life of José Santos Chocano. Notwithstanding, we are curious, like you, about it too and we are doing our best to find that information. But this is not really necessary, in my modest understanding.

Moreover, as you deserve all our admiration for your dedication, you also need to have the same spirit when you dealing with other volunteers. How do they say? "don't byte." Sometimes, without knowing it we give the appearance of doing just so, In know you don't want to do such a thing, but all sort of misunderstandings show-up. I know, it is all powerful and mighty stuff and one feels great, but in the end you are presenting a "face" that perhaps is the right one for some people but not for others, those who understand collaboration from another point of view than yours. You should forget me too for my views, hope you understand what I am communicating, in a very positive way.

Finally, I like your enormous amount of energy, definitely we need people like you in the world as a whole and mostly here in Wikimedia, you have stated it right you are trusted, and we should be honored the fact that we have you here doing all these things.

I will read your comments and I will answer them in the best of my wiki-abilities, out of my respect for your contributions to this noble and humane project. Please, continue enjoying your good life. Finally, please accept my friendship, I will learn from your wisdom.

The requirement is not "100 years old" but that the photographer died 70 years ago. You tagged the file with a tag saying that the author is 100 years death but you dont even know the author. All works I myself create and created in my life will not be public domain in 100 years! ...At least I hope not to die the next 30 years. The assumption of 100 years does not meat the reality. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I not understand the thinking that it does. --Martin H. (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes,about your 30 years, but the photo is more than 100 year circa 115 years old, second, in those times in Peru the expectancy of life, was only 58-60 years-old. I should be more clear, the likelihood that the photographer who took the picture has died, more than 70 or 75 years ago is approaching One. Go figure. JohnManuel (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The calculation is a guess and at the very border with your dates. 1895 the year, 16 the minimum age to make photos (thats my guess), 60 years the average age of death. 1895+(60-16)/2+70=1987. Means: An avarage photographer who took a photo in the middle of his career have his copyright expired in the 1980s. However we dont make guesses, we have to assume that the photographer not took it in the middle but at the very begining of his career. 1895+(60-16)+70=2009. Now we are already at the very borderline. We talk about 60 years avarage lifetime, it is reasonable to assume that a photographer will life longer then a worker or a farmer. Also we must assume that our photographer is not the avarage but that his life was as long as possible do be sure, anything else would be happy guessing. In this case 1895+(60↑-16)+70=2009↑ any longer lifetime brings us in copyright. Your calculation is not an valid assumption.

However I already removed the file from my watchlist and take your claim as valid. You first said that the "Source" is The Photograph is more than 100 years old - thats simply not a source, images normaly not magically appear on your computer, thats what you expresed with this "source". --Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it your understanding that we're ready to delete all 171 of these? Or are there some that we should wait on? The discussion seems a little vague on some -- I'm happy to click on [del] as needed, but I want to make sure we're ready. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have zero confidence that any file by the user is self-created. GrapedApe summarized it well. --Martin H. (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I found your warning for File:Giovanni-Gheddo-194207.jpg about missing or incomplete author and source. I updated the fields. Are they correct now? Thanks.--PME (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The copyright is with the photographer, the copyright lasts the photographers lifetime +70 years, so minimum 70 years. The 'owner' has no right to release someone else work under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. The photographer, in his photo shop, took the image of soldier Giovanni Gheddo and sold the paper image to him in 1942. The legal owner is now the son, that is Mr. Piero Gheddo. He gave the photo to me for creating the JPG. I would like to resolve the issue: explain me what I should write in author and source fields and I will do. The name of photographer is obviously unknown. Thanks. --PME (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats a common misunderstanding: The selling of the image does not transfer any copyrights, owning a copy (or the original) does not make one the copyright holder/owner of intelectual property rights. One can use the image for personal purposes but the owner of the copy can not grant reuse permisions to anyone else, thats the exclusive right of the copyright owner. Copyright transfer requires the written form, if the author name is unknown a copyright transfer in written form obviously not had taken place. The file is not public domain for any reason, thats all I can tell you from the given information. --Martin H. (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I loaded an older image (1928). You can remove that of 1942.--PME (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The user insists on uploading images protected and licensed incomplete. Just remove the markings and stands as the author of them in one moment and the next was the photographer who authorized it. You can check, please. Excuse my English.Fabianomsg 18:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thank you for helping me in the arrangment of Smart Aviation WIKI page, as I am not expert in doing this. The prmission for the photos returens back to an internal authorization in Smart Aviation as i am the only authorized person to do so there. I have placed the email that links to Chairman and Managing director's office for any further details and permissions (general@smartaviation.com.eg) and my work e-mail is (drmohanad@smartaviation.com.eg).

Hi! Two things: Please delete the two photos of mine on which I just worked. This is urgent. Second, please protect my user and talk pages. I've been stalked across several wikis over a three-week period because I blocked a returning vandal at Wikipedia and I've been fortunate enough to be under the radar with this account. Trust me regarding those deletion requests. I'm turning to you since yours is the most recent administrative action on the blocked users page. Thank you so much for your prompt attention. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Both your userpage and talk page have been protected. As for the other request, it is being handled via another venue. Marking as resolved. Tiptoetytalk 05:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin, if you remember we'd spoken a while back regarding uploading of images onto article Pritish Nandy Communications. The first time I did that, they were deleted due to copyright violation issues. But I have just received an email from Commons giving me a ticket number. Do I upload the images all over again? If yes, what is the option I should select under permissions or what should I keep in mind while uploading these images again? These images are not copyrighted to me but the original copyright holder has given me the permission to upload these images. The same has been emailed to Commons as well. Please advise. Shishir58 (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The first time you uploaded this file you uploaded them with "It is entirely my own work" in Commons:Upload. Please select the correct way for any reupload, it is from somewhere else, someone else work. It was published elsewhere before, so follow the instructions in the upload form: provide source and author information and copy&paste the text {{OTRS pending|month=September|day=1|year=2010}} into the permission field of the upload form as requested (If this is not your own file, or the work was already published elsewhere, use[...]). The OTRS information will be added by an OTRS member. --Martin H. (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I have uploaded a few images onto Commons following your instructions. Some of the images have also been inserted into the article. Please do check and let me know if its fine. Shishir58 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I sad once that I need your help with does images. Please help me to make this thing work about does two photos because I am not an expert for those copyright things or other more complicated things on Wikipedia. You erased one photo and I dont know how to make another one so please put this image back on my montage. Pleae help me to finish those photos wrightly and completly so I can go on with other things. Thanks! --SeikoEn (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The first revision of the file is not deleted, so you can easily update your montage with the replacement photo of Politkovskaya. --Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont know how to update my montage with new photo of Politovskaya??!! Please do it for me this time only. Thanks! --SeikoEn (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You created the original montage so you should be able to replace one image, or? I realy cant, I not even have an image editing software on this computer. --Martin H. (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I replaced Anna Politkovskaya with Mila Kunis for now; Although I don't know how to get "white letters" on the picture. Only used the simple standard windows "Paint" (program)... (If a Politkovskaya returns I would like to see Kunis take Erika Eleniak place since Kunis career seems to go somewhere better then Eleniak's one...) — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 02:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dont remove warnings without fixing the problem. We had this in the past already, today you run riot and obviously stoped caring about any quality efforts. Rethink before editing please. --Martin H. (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You are tagging and tagging and tagging, and we had this discussion before. If you have problems with {{own}} on paintings, go tag photos uploaded by Rama, and see what happens. Instead of biting newbies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Why dont you simply fixing the problems instead of lettin this trash through on the nod. That would be much more helpful. If I tag something it means that Im not able at that moment to fix it myself. And wrong is wrong, we dont need to talk about that. --Martin H. (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

When you tagged File:Pintura de Ignacio Lopez Rayon.jpg, the information was there. Uploader had made a photo of the painting in the museum. Then tag it with "no source". What is uploader supposed to comprehend about your personal problem? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

An author was missing at that time. Thats what I asked the uploader to add at his talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You only tagged. It did not help the uploader to understand what you wanted. As you also did here. It only chases uploaders away, not only from Commons, but from wikipedia as a whole. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone shows an reaction and asks me I will answer him, the template itself offers a place to help that Im also active at. In this case I answered his question, I however overlooked that the nsd tag was not removed but thats not the big problem, anyone is able to see the addition of author information post tagging in the version history. --Martin H. (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And the second upload you mention is from a notorious copyright violationist. I tagged the file to mention that the information is incomplete because I cant simply overlook such trash. The blocked uploader will clearly not be able to fix the mess he created in the future, so someone else is in the duty to fix it. --Martin H. (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Essential information for PD-art is the death of the author. The template claims that the author died 70 years ago, this of course requires that you name the author, otherwise the source information is incomplete or you cant use that copyright tag. Thats not absurde. At the moment of taggin I did not know how to navigate that spanish website, I now spent the time on this - something that you could have done too. --Martin H. (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No need, that will only exclude other editors who come here with the same IP in future. No reason to handicap others just because one newbie screwed it up. --Martin H. (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, this was so to say a {{userpageimage}} that you decided not longer to use, in such cases you can use {{speedy|image was only for my userpage and i dont want to use it longer}} or something like that. --Martin H. (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I am very new to Wikipedia & this is my first update! Mr. Sarath is my Uncle by relation and created this page as per his personal request. I can provide the link from where I picked up his picture. However, I do not have any permission documents as such. Just words.. The link for your kind perusal:http://www.sarathfilms.com/

You deleted this file as copyright violation, however it is stated on the ESA page that "Most images have been released publicly from ESA. You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes. The publicly released ESA images may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions:" I think the same way as for NASA images, however there is no special template for downloading of ESA images as for NASA. All the credits were given and conditions are not violated. Please explain how ESA pictures can be used? --Astrohist (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but the same picture is used in the English version of the article. Are the restrictions different if the file is loaded in local wikipedia. Can I use it the same way downloading in Russian segment only? This is the only image of the nucleus of the comet available. Please explain the legal way out. --Astrohist (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Help me please, I'm trying to do and little time you can not have blocked all the photos if you can help me copyright appreciate now why the old photo on the wikipedia dulce is old and sorry I wanted to change my alias irrelevant Portuguese is being translated by google is not great things I intend to take that intermediate survey on issues of informatics and I'm taking a picture of wikipedia as I can not upload any pictures I'll stop here just hope it will forgive me for issu up.

I'm retired nw. The problem is that it appearing on Google search which I dont want. Please understand. --20:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing that allows deletion. Blanking it will remove it from google the same way. It will take some month untill google not lists it anymore in both scenarios, deletion and blanking. --Martin H. (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Piravom1.jpg , is appearing on several websites, I didnt understand how this become a part of wikimedia commons and also its in low quality. A better quality picture is available on the following link. Please advice is this image really have the copyright or not. I am asking this because i am having a picture of the same in High Quality and taken recently.. Before adding it i should ask an admin to help..

en:File:Piravom1.jpg is on english Wikipedia, not here on Commons. If you doubt that it is free - I share this doubt - you should nominate it for en:WP:PUI. To upload photographs here that you created yourself you dont have to ask anyone. The only requirement is that you tooke the photo realy yourself (and that it is not derivative of someone else work, e.g. a photo of a newspaper/poster/cd-cover or a not public domain artwork). --Martin H. (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Martin H.! I heard you blocked the user Freewayspeeds. You gave the reason "Vandalism-only account." He's never vandalized Wikimedia Commons before, so can you please unblock him? Thanks! 24.56.32.67 00:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your editing here is a waste of time, your time as well as my time. Leave our projects please or at least stop trolling, no one asked you to start on this project. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I got several pictures downloaded from Google Earth, Skyscrapercity forums, etc. And I'm pretty sure they're not copyrighted, so why can't I use them?

I also saw that you erased images from Jorge Chavez International Airport Article and Peruvian Airlines Article, which is strange because they were erased like an hour and they picutres had been there for weeks, even months.

First, any images you find on the internet is protected by copyright. You can not upload someting here unless you have written permission from the copyright holder that they agree to a free content license. See Commons:Licensing. Second your observation is right, I first deleted your copyright violations/policy violations and then checked the category Category:Jorge Chávez International Airport and found a whole lot of other people who also uploaded non-free files here. This files have been deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You sent me a message... Photographic works of 3D objects always meet the threshold originality. You can not upload such works without permission, see Commons:First steps. --Martin H. (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you like... speak proper english please and explain? you also deleted most of my Pictures? Why so? KyleAraujo (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Commons:First steps? You uplaoded an photographic work File:Statistica line.jpg with the claim that it is an {{PD-textlogo}} - a mediafile that represents a logo that only consists of plain text... No, its a photo of something that is not a logo and not only text. As a photographic work of something that is not 2D but 3D the photographer has a copyright, that copyright is not {{PD-textlogo}} and not Commons:Licensing#Simple design. You uploaded an advertising photo that you toke from a Volkswagen website and claimed (=licensing), that the photo is a {{PD-textlogo}}... No, that is also not a logo. Its a photograph, protected by copyright and you are not allowed to upload it here with bugous licensing claims and without the copyright holders written permission to a free content license. --Martin H. (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Some time ago you removed the category Arjen Robben from the categories 'players of' the teams where he has played. You considered it was a bad categorization, so I was thinking about other ways to show this relationship. However, in my opinion the categories 'players of' are still the most appropiate: all of the pictures of the person can be categorized under a players by team category, even he is not playing for that team on some photos, like a professor of an university would be well categorized under 'professors of' altough he moved to another university or some or his images showed him doing for example sports. Anyone who has worked in some places could in fact fit on this situation. Lobo (howl?) 08:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your example with the professor is another good example of how categorization does not work. For Robben I created Arjen Robben - a gallery. The gallery resolves the problem of hierarchic categorization. --Martin H. (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Gerold_Bepler_Hope_photo.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself. Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Is it acceptable to send a letter from the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, on the official letterhead, that they have granted me permission to upload and use the photo? Thanks. Scribe36 (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please forward any permission to COM:OTRS. You say 'to send a letter', im not sure if this refers to a print letter. If you only have a print letter that you can not scan you may contact OTRS also and ask what to do. The postal adress is written in the disclaimer of this project. --Martin H. (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was doing some patrolling with images on wikipedia & commons, I found several image files which is taken from internet and posted to Flickr by somebody and uploaded in wikipedia, and wikipedia accepted the file as from Flickr... I have a question how its possible, for a user to copy a protected image from internet to flickr and post to wikipedia..--Binukalarickan (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Start a deletion request if you think an unfree file was uploaded. --Martin H. (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Borderline case, but I tend to yes, simple design. Depends however also on Argentinian law and what they judge as simple and not. Im most influenced by the german law with a very high threshold of originality, so my 'vote' might be wrong. --Martin H. (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Marrtin H. The user Freewayspeeds has been infintely blocked. He requests to be unblocked/ the block was really unjustified. He promises to not vandalizee Wikimedia Commons; in fact, he didn't suggest to block himself/herself for his/her own vandalism, so can you please unblock Freewayspeeds?

Are you kidding? Special:Contributions/63.232.18.26... why do you came to this project, what do you want here? The only thing you did here so far is vandalizing mine and other users (including your own) talkpages and moaning that your account is now blocked - not to mention that you yourself asked to block yourself... --Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to have your views on the above file, as if this file overcomes all the non-free law's, Wikipedia can take a bucket of images from the internet...--PatrolBot 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The only question there is if this file is usuable under wikipedia fair use. Wikimedia projects are free content projects. But projects can formulate an exemption doctrine policy (EDP) and decide, under what conditions non-free content is allowed in their projecs. See foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy for the framework. The english Wikipedia has such an exemption - under U.S. copyright law this is called en:fair use. Commons however is a different project, fair use is not applicable here and, as mentioned in the foundation resultion, will never be applicable. So the image is unfree but it is (it is a low resolution photo of a dead person and no free image exists to replace it) ok to use in Wikipedia under fair use in an specific article. Read about the fair use policy in Wikipedia, it is linked inside the non-free fair use template with the red copyright symbol. --Martin H. (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I must tell you about this user. He persists in the copyvio uploads and logos. Some days ago, he reclaimed in the Spanish Wikipedia and was angry about the deletions, so he don't understood about his previous blocks. --Taichi (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Im watching his uploads and will delete them, if he continues like that I will simply {{copyviouploadindefblock}} him. The files (maps) are obviously unfree and obviously not own work - besides some other bogous things like {{PD-USGov}} on publications of some publications of local authorities in argentina. This can be corrected provided that the files are free, the files are not free. --Martin H. (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

you have marked a photo of mine to be deleted. The picture Armin Sabol.jpg is in my posession since I use it as my own promo pic, since I am Armin Sabol. I may have tagged or marked it in a wrong or insufficent way since I haven't uploaded photos before. I therefore kindly ask you to remove your mark telling that this picture is to be deleted. I seem to be too unexpereienced to do so by myself.

Hello, user MetalBrasil has some uploaded imaegs deleted, clearly stated he doesn't care to copyrights, and has now uploaded this image of Iron Maiden show, saying it's his own work, taken at a Concert in São Paulo, in March 2009. But metadata says file was changed at 2006... What can it be done about that? Also, if you could check this deletion request. Thanks, Ednei amaral (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Martin H. I really request you to unblock Freewayspeeds. He said he didn't do anything, so can you please unblock so he will do constructive edits? Thanks. 72.223.126.115 05:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Martin I have changed, the talk page of mallu man max---as it is not active or the account need to be closed. I prefer the username to be vanished away, is it possible...--PatrolBot (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

With the templates I placed on it the userpage it is hidden for external search engines. In my eyes you toke no efforts to remove your copyright violations and I still suspect that there are not only this but many more sockpuppet accounts around here and on en.wp - I refer some accounts with Mallu... or ...Mallu that I found. The account Mallu_Man_Max was a single purpose account, it was intended to do nothing here but infiltrate Commons with copyright violations. I see no reason why to grant such an abusive account any extras, for miaintenance it is essentiall to have this tagged as a sockpuppet to remind that abuse had taken place with this account. --Martin H. (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

All the images are removed by admin, i dont know what i can do for removing the images uploaded through another account, Can i request for removing the usertalk page or renaming it, as i believe that its over...and after that number of incidents i didnt contribute anything which is copyrighted.Currently I am giving something to commons with 100% surety on the copyright of the item...

Searching for all sock is upto you, And i am sure that you cannot find any account associated with my name either in commons or in wikipedia...

If you can show me any picture i uploaded after that, i am ready to stop editing in wikipedia--PatrolBot (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We are in dissent about your last point. Its up to you to clean out all the damage you did to the projects if you are interested in the project. I appreciate that you stoped, but thats all. --Martin H. (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)